Serious violent crimes consist of Part 1 offenses as defined by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Uniform Reporting Statistics. These include murders, nonnegligent homicides, rapes (legacy and revised), robberies, and aggravated assaults. LAPD data were used for City of Los Angeles, LASD data were used for unincorporated areas and cities that contract with LASD for law enforcement services, and CA Attorney General data were used for all other cities with local police departments. This indicator is based on location of residence. Single-year data are only available for Los Angeles County overall, Service Planning Areas, Supervisorial Districts, City of Los Angeles overall, and City of Los Angeles Council Districts.Neighborhood violence and crime can have a harmful impact on all members of a community. Living in communities with high rates of violence and crime not only exposes residents to a greater personal risk of injury or death, but it can also render individuals more susceptible to many adverse health outcomes. People who are regularly exposed to violence and crime are more likely to suffer from chronic stress, depression, anxiety, and other mental health conditions. They are also less likely to be able to use their parks and neighborhoods for recreation and physical activity.For more information about the Community Health Profiles Data Initiative, please see the initiative homepage.

***Starting on March 7th, 2024, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) will adopt a new Records Management System for reporting crimes and arrests. This new system is being implemented to comply with the FBI's mandate to collect NIBRS-only data (NIBRS — FBI - https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/more-fbi-services-and-information/ucr/nibrs). During this transition, users will temporarily see only incidents reported in the retiring system. However, the LAPD is actively working on generating new NIBRS datasets to ensure a smoother and more efficient reporting system. *** **Update 1/18/2024 - LAPD is facing issues with posting the Crime data, but we are taking immediate action to resolve the problem. We understand the importance of providing reliable and up-to-date information and are committed to delivering it. As we work through the issues, we have temporarily reduced our updates from weekly to bi-weekly to ensure that we provide accurate information. Our team is actively working to identify and resolve these issues promptly. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and appreciate your understanding. Rest assured, we are doing everything we can to fix the problem and get back to providing weekly updates as soon as possible. ** This dataset reflects incidents of crime in the City of Los Angeles dating back to 2020. This data is transcribed from original crime reports that are typed on paper and therefore there may be some inaccuracies within the data. Some location fields with missing data are noted as (0°, 0°). Address fields are only provided to the nearest hundred block in order to maintain privacy. This data is as accurate as the data in the database. Please note questions or concerns in the comments.

This dataset includes all valid felony, misdemeanor, and violation crimes reported to the New York City Police Department (NYPD) for all complete quarters so far this year (2017). For additional details, please see the attached data dictionary in the ‘About’ section.

Crime rates for various neighborhoods in Atlanta, Georgia, highlighting areas with higher crime rates compared to the city average.

Detailed crime statistics for Atlanta, Georgia, in 2024, highlighting overall crime trends and specific neighborhood data.

Abstract (en): The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effects of Neighborhood Watch signs on perceived crime rates, likelihood of victimization, community safety, and estimates of home and community quality. Part 1 (Study One Data) assessed the causal impact of Neighborhood Watch sign presence and content on perceptions of the community. Three Neighborhood Watch signs were incorporated into a series of slide show presentations. The signs utilized the traditional orange and white color scheme with black text and were used to represent an injunctive norm alone, a low descriptive norm for crime, or a high descriptive norm for crime. Digital color images of a for-sale home and the surrounding neighborhood of a middle class community in North San Diego County were shown to 180 undergraduates recruited from the Psychology Department's Human Participant Pool, and from other lower division general education courses at California State University, San Marcos, between July and November of 2005. Three of the slide shows were designated as Neighborhood Watch communities with one of the three sign types posted, and the fourth slide show served as a control with no posted crime prevention signs. Each slide show consisted of 20 images of the home and community, along with four instruction slides. Part 2 (Study Two Data) replicated the basic effect from Study 1 and extended the research to examine the moderating role of community social economic status (SES) on the effects of the Neighborhood Watch signs. Participants were 547 undergraduate students recruited from the Psychology Department's Human Participant Pool, and from other lower division general education courses at California State University and Palomar Community College in San Marcos, between January and September 2006. A total of 12 slide shows were utilized in Study Two, such that each of the four sign conditions from Study One was represented across each of the three communities (Low, Middle, and High SES). Part 3 (Study Three Data) examined the potential for the physical condition of the Neighborhood Watch signs posted in the community to convey normative information about the presence and acceptance of crime in the community. Participants were 364 undergraduate students recruited from the Psychology Department's Human Participant Pool, and from other lower division general education courses at California State University and Palomar Community College in San Marcos, between October 2006 and March 2007. Study Three used the same generic (Injunctive Norm, Program Only) sign that was utilized in Studies One and Two. However, three variations (new, aged, and defaced) of the sign were used. The surveys used for Study One, Study Two, and Study Three, were identical. The data include variables on perceived crime rates, perceived likelihood of victimization, perceived community safety, community ratings, self-protective behavior, burglar's perspective, manipulation check, and demographics of the respondent. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effects of Neighborhood Watch signs on perceived crime rates, likelihood of victimization, community safety, and estimates of home and community quality. The goal of Study One (Part 1) was to assess the causal impact of Neighborhood Watch sign presence and content on perceptions of the community. Three Neighborhood Watch signs were incorporated into a series of slide show presentations. The signs utilized the traditional orange and white color scheme with black text and were used to represent an injunctive norm alone, a low descriptive norm for crime, or a high descriptive norm for crime. The three signs are worded as follows: Generic (Injunctive Norm, Program Only): "Neighborhood Watch Program in Force" with the familiar picture of a burglar with a red circle and bar.; Low Descriptive Norm: "Neighborhood Watch Program in Force: This area has been identified by the City as a Crime Free Zone" with the picture of a burglar with red circle and bar.; High Descriptive Norm: "Neighborhood Watch Program in Force: This area has been identified by the City as a High Crime Area" with the picture of a burglar with red circle and bar.; Digital color images of a for-sale home and the surrounding neighborhood of a middle class community in North San Diego County were shown to 180 undergraduates recruited from the Psychology Department's Human Participant Pool, and lower division general education courses at California State University, S...